Is Today, The Prophecy Of Iron & Clay ?

[rjp34652]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consider the image of the feet of clay mixed with iron.   Most commentators agree that this indicates some sort of confederacy of nations.  It indicates a loose binding of nations mixed with iron the symbol of military power.

 

Consider also that the United Nations is the ONLY such global organization to have appeared in history.   The UN consists of a loose membership of every nation on the planet and at one time, at least, boasted a limited military presence to buffer aggression.  Iron and clay.

 

Granted that the military arm is no longer used, due in part to aggression on the part of the USA which cannot be blocked by UN action or sanction.   UN military was once a factor in international peacekeeping.   Therefore the UN fits the description of the feet of Daniel's idol.

 

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

 

 

 

==============================================================================================================

 

Consider the image of the feet of clay mixed with iron.   Most commentators agree that this indicates some sort of confederacy of nations.  It indicates a loose binding of nations mixed with iron the symbol of military power.

 

 

Most Commentators Agree?  Well Consensus (even the unnamed variety in this case) doesn't = TRUTH.  They (The "Most") also have some Serious Reading Comprehension Issues or "a priori" adherence's (My guess is Both)....

 

(Daniel 2:43) "And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay."

 

Question:  Whoever is mingling with the seed of men ....can they be the seed of men without the passage being Redundant and Nonsensical?

 

(Daniel 2:44) "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."

 

 

Therefore the UN fits the description of the feet of Daniel's idol.

 

 

How so?

 

Who's the Iron Legs?

 

The Toes are still made up of Iron, they also = The "Ten Horns" (Ten Kings) of the Great and Terrible Beast of Daniel 7.

 

Who's this....

 

(Daniel 9:26-27) "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 

 

{27} And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

 

If the People of 'the prince" were the ROMANS that destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD.... who was the "prince" of those people?  Is the "he" in Verse 27 (which is referring to the Antecedent in Verse 26 of "the prince"), A "Type"---- antichrist?

 

 

regards

 

 

To begin, your rejection of commentaries is unworthy of a student of scripture.   To do so is to invite heresy in the extreme and the tissue thin suppositions of a subjective opinion at best.    I submit to the reader the following from two noted commentaries.  I could write more, but think 2 should suffice.  After all, if one will not believe anything except his own mind, what's the point?

 

WYCLIFFE BIBLE COMMENTARY

"Nebuchadnezzar's Dream of a Great Image: A Prophecy of the Times of the Gentiles.."

a. "The Head of Gold, a King of Kings is a title customarily applied to Medo-Persian and Babylonian emperors found in Greek classics and in the records of the countries involved..."

The Head of Gold represents the King of Babylon.

b. "The breast and arms of silver represent the kingdom of the Medes and Persians which replaced the Babylonians."

c. "The Belly and Thigh of brass - History and scripture agree that this was the Greek (Macedonian) empire of Alexander and his successors."

d. "The forth kingdom of iron is the form of world dominion known to the Bible and History as Rome.  (Note:) Some see in the vision of two legs the division of the Roman Empire into two branches; Rome and Byzantium/Constantinople"

e. "The word in verse 41 'pliga' means 'to divide' and occurs only in the OT.  It is rendered by 'Young' and 'Buxtorf' as meaning 'composite'. ... In its final stage this kingdom will be brittle and easily shattered.  This is owing to the mixture in symbol of the clay with the iron."

 

(from Choir loft) My use of the word 'confederacy' may perhaps have intruded into private political sensibilities here.  According to the above 3 commentary reviews the vision is more aptly defined as 'composite'.

 

THE INTERPRETER'S ONE VOLUME COMMENTARY

1. "The four metals of the statue represent 4 successive kingdoms or empires."

2. "The 1st is the neo-Babylonian empire of Nebuchadnezzar."

3. "The second is evidently that of the Medes - contemporary with the Babylonian rather than a successor to it."

4. "The third is the Greek-Macedonian empire of Alexander."

5. "The forth is symbolically divided west and east (Rome and Byzantium/Constantinople"

6. "The feet of iron and clay support the idea of a succession of dynasties.  Iron and Clay suggest strength and weakness in a single kingdom."

 

(from Choir Loft; The Interpreter's version of the image agrees with other commentaries except with regard to the image's feet.  A dynasty is a succession of family based or political governments.   Gentile history may be viewed in this context, although the wording is a bit strange to me.  The final statement, that the mingled kingdom is of strength and weakness would also agree with the interpretation of  a 'composite' world empire.   A gathering of nations, but a fragile one at best.

 

There is no other candidate since the days of Rome that fulfills such as description except that of the United Nations.   It is indeed a loose mingling or composite of nations albeit a very fragile one.)

 

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

 

PS   As someone wrote earlier, it does appear that God's design for the UN was to allow the modern State of Israel to achieve legitimate status among nations.  The UN military, now defunct, was used in the first decade and a half to guard Israel's borders.  This was its primary purpose although UN troops were occasionally used to suppress the actions of war lords in African nations at that time.   Today those duties have been assumed by European and American military interests directly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

=============================================================================================

 

 

 

 

This is a bit "over the top", don't ya think...

 

To begin, your rejection of commentaries is unworthy of a student of scripture.   To do so is to invite heresy in the extreme and the tissue thin suppositions of a subjective opinion at best.

 

 

I'm unworthy of a student of Scripture and "Heresy" for the rejection of "Commentaries".  What on Earth?      Can you please point to the Scripture that talks about "heresy" in relation to Bible Expositions and Commentaries....?

 

 

"Nebuchadnezzar's Dream of a Great Image: A Prophecy of the Times of the Gentiles.."

a. "The Head of Gold, a King of Kings is a title customarily applied to Medo-Persian and Babylonian emperors found in Greek classics and in the records of the countries involved..."

The Head of Gold represents the King of Babylon.

b. "The breast and arms of silver represent the kingdom of the Medes and Persians which replaced the Babylonians."

c. "The Belly and Thigh of brass - History and scripture agree that this was the Greek (Macedonian) empire of Alexander and his successors."

d. "The forth kingdom of iron is the form of world dominion known to the Bible and History as Rome.  (Note:) Some see in the vision of two legs the division of the Roman Empire into two branches; Rome and Byzantium/Constantinople"

 

THE INTERPRETER'S ONE VOLUME COMMENTARY

1. "The four metals of the statue represent 4 successive kingdoms or empires."

2. "The 1st is the neo-Babylonian empire of Nebuchadnezzar."

3. "The second is evidently that of the Medes - contemporary with the Babylonian rather than a successor to it."

4. "The third is the Greek-Macedonian empire of Alexander."

5. "The forth is symbolically divided west and east (Rome and Byzantium/Constantinople"

6. "The feet of iron and clay support the idea of a succession of dynasties.  Iron and Clay suggest strength and weakness in a single kingdom."

 

 

I've posted Literally Hundreds of Posts here on Worthy Outlining this exact position; Ergo, your entire ensemble here..... and Baseless Assertions (Fallacy) thereof, are nothing but "contrived" Strawman (Fallacies).

 

This is but one of those Hundreds: 

 

 

The final statement, that the mingled kingdom is of strength and weakness would also agree with the interpretation of  a 'composite' world empire.   A gathering of nations, but a fragile one at best.

 

 

It's not.  It's the Iron (ROME) mixed with the Miry Clay.

 

And it tells you why it's brittle and why they will not cleave....

 

(Daniel 2:43) "And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay."

 

It couldn't be any more clear if it was stamped on your forehead.

 

 

 

There is no other candidate since the days of Rome that fulfills such as description except that of the United Nations.

 

 

So after we burn down all the Strawman (Fallacies) we finally get to cases.  The IRON is the compelling factor in this Matter.  You say it's the UN.....I say it's the ROMAN Empire Revived.

 

As you rightly pointed out, there were 2 Legs to the Roman Empire: the  (Western Leg) which dissolved around 400 AD and the Eastern Leg (Byzantine) that lasted for another 1,000 years.

 

The IRON Legs (ROME), then-------> The IRON Toes (ROME, Ten Kings) mixed with the Miry Clay; (Future Kingdom).

 

UN doesn't = ROME

 

 

 

 

Perhaps it's time to stop "hollering" and get to the "Rightly Dividing"?

 

 

Last point first;

Rightly dividing?  What do you mean by that?  

There are two definitions for 'rightly dividing'.  

First is the dispensationalist definition, which basically means that one cuts scripture into bits and pieces in order to justify one's opinion.   

Second is what some refer to as the 'covenant definition', which basically means that one does not take scripture versus out of context.

 

Please clarify your slogan here.  Which version of 'rightly dividing' do you mean?   If I take the context of your post as evidence, I would assume you cut scripture into bits and pieces to justify your subjective opinion.   Then again, I'm not a mind reader and can only respond to what you've written as you've written it.

 

Next point is your accusation of me as a liar.  I'm not trying to lead anyone astray or to wrongly interpret scripture.  Quite the contrary, I've used external authority - not my own - to define the meaning of the scripture in question.   It should be noted that you have NOT done so, and have relied completely upon personal attack and your own subjective opinion - which is highly questionable at best.

 

Third point is your feeble attempt to divert the discussion by asking for a Biblical definition of heresy.   If this point isn't a straw man fallacy, I don't know what is.  I suggest you use a dictionary to find the meaning of the word heresy.

 

Forth point is related to the third.  You've made extended points in reference to ancestry, who is related to who and so on, which have nothing to do with interpretive commentaries.

 

I really don't care how many posts you've made here.   Repetitive comments do not make one an authority.  They only mean such a person likes to inflict their subjective opinions upon the views of others.   Shout 'em down is the tactic, I believe.   It has nothing whatsoever to do with any statement of truth.

 

Case in point is that when I made my first reference to the UN, you said I had made statements without authoritative support.   This is a valid point.  However, when I DID post references you denied the veracity of each of them.  In each case YOU made NO authoritative references yourself.   Every single remark you've made has been entirely subjective - off the top of your head or perhaps more correctly according to your own understanding of scripture.

 

How do you know you're correct?  How does the reader know you're correct?  You've provided no authority except your claim that you know all things correctly.   This is the epitome of scriptural hubris, in my humble opinion.

 

Oh, and by the way, the Latin empire collapsed when Constantinople was taken by the Turk Mehmet II in the year 1453.   The event severed the trade routes Europe had enjoyed with the east by way of the Silk Road as Constantinople was the western terminus.   During a search for a new trade route around the Muslim controlled world,  the New World was discovered forty years later.  The Muslim influence, then as now, has a strong influence upon European history.

 

Referring now to the historic record as well as popular tripe that is often accepted as gospel, the revived Roman Empire suggested by Biblical prophecy DOES NOT point to the city of Rome.  It does, in fact, point to the eastern capital of the old Roman Empire, Constantinople.  That city was controlled by the Muslim Ottoman Turks until the end of WWI when the modern state of Turkey was founded under the leadership of Mustafa Ataturk in 1923.   It can be shown, by means of legitimate historic records, that the remnants of the old Roman Empire continued in political form, albeit under Muslim control, until the first quarter of the twentieth century.  A revived Roman Empire can therefore only refer to the Eastern Empire.

 

In point of fact, many adherents of culture in the Middle East recognize this very fact - that a hoped for revived Roman Empire means a revived caliphate similar to that of the Ottoman Empire.  Blog postings from Levant sources reflect the desire of the people there for a revived caliphate - actually a revived Roman Empire of the east.

 

Twisting scipture to suit one's own agenda won't result in an accurate projection of future events.  It will only confuse one's self as well as one's readers.   I've read that sort of gibberish since the 1960's and its always the same.   Current events suggest the flow of history is going in a direction not recognized by the old school back woods preacher gospels based on mid-nineenth century theology and dogma (I'm referring of course to John Nelson Darby and the Scofield heresy.)

 

Rightly dividing, to my way of thinking, is looking at scripture as a whole in addition to consulting with scholars who have spent a considerable amount of time studying them.

 

So far, you have provided no external reference except to quote more scripture.   As we all know, even the devil can do that.  I suggest a more studied approach to the truth.

 

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

 

======================================================================================================================

 

 

Last point first;

Rightly dividing?  What do you mean by that? 

There are two definitions for 'rightly dividing'. 

1.  First is the dispensationalist definition, which basically means that one cuts scripture into bits and pieces in order to justify one's opinion.  

2. Second is what some refer to as the 'covenant definition', which basically means that one does not take scripture versus out of context.

 

 

1.  No it means to separate where there needs separation like The Jews and "The Church". 

2.  The Context is the Whole Counsel of GOD.

 

I was using the phrase in a more Specific Sense.  You divided where there shouldn't be any division:  "Iron" Legs and the "Iron" mixed with Miry Clay Toes. With the Iron being Rome....the compelling Factor in the Matter;  Hence, my statement to..... stop hollering and get to the "Rightly Dividing" part.

 

 

Next point is your accusation of me as a liar.    

 

 

Baseless "erroneous" Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy) AGAIN.  And an Appeal to Emotion (Fallacy), a "Tell" for No Argument and is associated with the "Last Port in the Storm" Scenario: Fallacies, Contrived Slights, Diversions, Revisionism, employed when all reason has exited, stage left.

 

 

I'm not trying to lead anyone astray or to wrongly interpret scripture.  Quite the contrary, I've used external authority - not my own - to define the meaning of the scripture in question.   It should be noted that you have NOT done so, and have relied completely upon personal attack and your own subjective opinion - which is highly questionable at best.

 

 

Can you be a tad more specific like....What on Earth are you talking about?  To clear up any confusion and to speak to things directly, perhaps you should quote the exact phrase you are talking about and the speak to it directly....sort of like how I am treating yours right now; so as to limit confusion and Ambiguous Unsupported Claims.

 

Third point is your feeble attempt to divert the discussion by asking for a Biblical definition of heresy.   If this point isn't a straw man fallacy, I don't know what is.  I suggest you use a dictionary to find the meaning of the word heresy. 

 

 

Feeble, eh?  Divert the discussion....YOU BROUGHT IT UP!  And diverting a discussion is a Red Herring not a Strawman.

 

This is what you said exactly...

 

"To begin, your rejection of commentaries is unworthy of a student of scripture.   To do so is to invite heresy in the extreme and the tissue thin suppositions of a subjective opinion at best."

 

So I asked you to support your nonsense, Scripturally: "Heresy" and "heresy in the extreme" in relation to rejecting Bible Commentaries.... to which you retort by telling me to go look it up.  Yes I'm sure I'll find "Heresy in the Extreme" in relation to Bible Commentaries in a Secular Dictionary.

 

And your Baseless Assumption ("Guess") "rejection of commentaries"...how do you know that, Special Mind Powers?  If yes, let me know I have a special Test to eval that acumen.

 

 

Forth point is related to the third.  You've made extended points in reference to ancestry, who is related to who and so on, which have nothing to do with interpretive commentaries.

 

 

Ancestry?  Where?

 

 

I really don't care how many posts you've made here.   Repetitive comments do not make one an authority.  They only mean such a person likes to inflict their subjective opinions upon the views of others.   Shout 'em down is the tactic, I believe.   It has nothing whatsoever to do with any statement of truth.

 

 

Is everything ok?  So you "conjure" something completely "out of context" then Extrapolate from that you're hapless baseless conclusions.  Do you employ this technique in day to day operations?  Can you share your error rate?

 

This is what I said after your Baseless Assumption Guess (SEE: Above) of not reviewing commentaries and your outline of the statue in Dan Chapter 2, Which has been my position for many years; ERGO, IN CONTEXT.....

 

"I've posted Literally Hundreds of Posts here on Worthy Outlining this exact position; Ergo, your entire ensemble here..... and Baseless Assertions (Fallacy) thereof, are nothing but "contrived" Strawman (Fallacies)."

 

 

However, when I DID post references you denied the veracity of each of them.

 

 

References you posted?     This is what you posted...

 

"Consider the image of the feet of clay mixed with iron.   Most commentators agree that this indicates some sort of confederacy of nations.  It indicates a loose binding of nations mixed with iron the symbol of military power."

 

"Consider also that the United Nations is the ONLY such global organization to have appeared in history.   The UN consists of a loose membership of every nation on the planet and at one time, at least, boasted a limited military presence to buffer aggression.  Iron and clay."

"Granted that the military arm is no longer used, due in part to aggression on the part of the USA which cannot be blocked by UN action or sanction.   UN military was once a factor in international peacekeeping.   Therefore the UN fits the description of the feet of Daniel's idol."

 

You call these "References"?  Are you joking?   I denied the Veracity of your Baseless Opinions? Please show where, Quote Me specifically....? 

 

 

Every single remark you've made has been entirely subjective - off the top of your head or perhaps more correctly according to your own understanding of scripture.

 

 

Generalized Sweeping Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy).  Show ???

 

 

1. How do you know you're correct?  2. You've provided no authority except your claim that you know all things correctly.  3. This is the epitome of scriptural hubris, in my humble opinion.

 

 

1.  Comparing Scripture with Scripture...we have a match!

 

2. I never made the claim that "I know all things correctly" so this is yet another Baseless "contrived" Assertion (Fallacy)

 

3. And this is the conclusion which is based off your Baseless "contrived" Assertion (Fallacy) so it's Fallacious also.

 

Pro TIP:  Fallacies are Fallacious

 

 

Referring now to the historic record as well as popular tripe that is often accepted as gospel, the revived Roman Empire suggested by Biblical prophecy DOES NOT point to the city of Rome.

 

 

Who said it did?  Ergo.... yet another Strawman (Fallacy).  I said the Roman Empire then showed you a picture of it.

 

 

It does, in fact, point to the eastern capital of the old Roman Empire, Constantinople.

 

 

Is that so?  And you can support this with Scripture?

 

 

Oh, and by the way, the Latin empire collapsed when Constantinople was taken by the Turk Mehmet II in the year 1453. 

 

 

So my statement of:  the Western Leg of the Roman Empire dissolved circa 400 AD but the Eastern Leg of that same Empire (Byzantine) lasted for another 1,000 years was more or less correct then, eh?

 

400 + 1,000 = 1400.  Good enough for gov't work.

 

 

The event severed the trade routes Europe had enjoyed with the east by way of the Silk Road as Constantinople was the western terminus.   During a search for a new trade route around the Muslim controlled world,  the New World was discovered forty years later.  The Muslim influence, then as now, has a strong influence upon European history.

 

 

So?

 

 

That city was controlled by the Muslim Ottoman Turks until the end of WWI when the modern state of Turkey was founded under the leadership of Mustafa Ataturk in 1923.   It can be shown, by means of legitimate historic records, that the remnants of the old Roman Empire continued in political form, albeit under Muslim control, until the first quarter of the twentieth century.  A revived Roman Empire can therefore only refer to the Eastern Empire.

 

 

Non-Sequitur (Fallacy)---the premise doesn't agree with the conclusion.  So you're saying that since you "contrived" the lasting of the Eastern Leg until 1923 this then PRECLUDES the Western Leg of the Old Roman Empire (Western Europe)....European Union  ,  which is quite "revived", from reviving.  

 

 

 

"Twisting scipture to suit one's own agenda won't result in an accurate projection of future events."---

 

Can you tell us when you're going to stop doing it?

 

 

"So far, you have provided no external reference except to quote more scripture."----

 

So you're suggesting I should filter my Hermeneutics through the World first then get back to you?  

 

I did provide an External Reference, the 139 Member Countries of the UN....so wrong again.

 

Can you list the External "References" you've provided?

 

 

"and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft."----

[rjp34652]

 

 

So you're suggesting I should filter my Hermeneutics through the World first then get back to you?  

 

I did provide an External Reference, the 139 Member Countries of the UN....so wrong again.

 

Can you list the External "References" you've provided?

 

 

"and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft."----

 

 

Your list of UN member nations was interesting, albeit non-specific to the discussion.   It does not suffice to represent authoritative and legitimate support for any of your Biblical assertions.   To repeat my earlier invitation, I suggest that you include external references to your bombastic insinuations.  Until and unless you do, you are only proving to the casual reader that you consider your subjective opinion to be gospel truth.   Sadly, not only do your prefer to argue endlessly to no real point but you refuse to accept any corrections, admonitions or suggestions for further study.    In possession of such an attitude, one wonders if such an attitude and opinion is the result of an education in a formal environment or the product of a confused and aggressive philosophy contrived solely in the mind.

 

Filter your hermeneutics?   Look up the definition of the word.  Hermeneutics is "the  branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation..."   Any modern branch of knowledgeable study requires the consideration of external sources.   You consider none except your own.  This is NOT hermeneutics, it is pretentious self-indulgent use of scripture for personal gratification.  You may prefer to gratify yourself within your dark private place, but it does little to edify others.

 

Did you graduate from any formal institution, such as high school?   If so, you may remember being required to write papers with external sources for your conclusions.   That is the accepted form for forming an opinion, sir.   Are you looking for the truth or do you worship your own words as though you were appreciating your own reflection in some sort of literary mirror.

 

First assertion last was that I BEGAN the conversation.   I certainly did not.  Like others I responded to the initial post of this particular thread "Is the prophecy of iron and clay for today".    In short, I believe it is.    The details of my statement, complete with external references (which you are incapable of providing) do not agree with your papal position.  Are you the sole arbiter of the meaning of scripture?   If your attitude is to be believed you seem to think so.  

 

By now the reader must wonder why I'm spending so much time in a futile attempt to get you to do one simple thing - to consider that your dogma is somewhat erroneous.  The truth is that I perceive you do have a certain cognitive ability and desire for perusal of scripture.   You have done yourself a disservice by fastening upon your own interpretations to the complete dismissal of opinions of men who are your betters (I refer here to literary authorities, historic authorities, etc.).   This is not a healthy attitude and certainly not the Christian ideal.

 

Humility is not on your plate.   If it was I am convinced you would become an avid student and a useful contributor to the practical application of Biblically based knowledge.  As it is, your posts carry no authority at all.   They are merely examples of badly digested internal formulations with the same effect upon your readers as baked beans on a bus trip. 

 

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[seandavids]

I find it interesting every theologian accepts the final kingdom that God sets up in the time of those kingdoms (the four beast) to be Christianity manifested by Christians world wide

 

but in interpreting the four beast kingdoms they quickly decide the four beast to be human empires with no spiritual connections what so ever

 

yet the final kingdom is completely a Spiritual kingdom manifested by humans connected to His kingdom, while the other four kingdoms are just political parties and have no spiritual ties

[Last Daze]

I find it interesting every theologian accepts the final kingdom that God sets up in the time of those kingdoms (the four beast) to be Christianity manifested by Christians world wide

 

but in interpreting the four beast kingdoms they quickly decide the four beast to be human empires with no spiritual connections what so ever

 

yet the final kingdom is completely a Spiritual kingdom manifested by humans connected to His kingdom, while the other four kingdoms are just political parties and have no spiritual ties

 

I think Daniel 10 shows an association between certain kingdoms of this world and the fallen angel "princes" that oversee them.

 

Then he said to me, “Do not be afraid, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart on understanding this and on humbling yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to your words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia. Now I have come to give you an understanding of what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision pertains to the days yet future.”  Daniel 10:12-14

 

Then he said, “Do you understand why I came to you? But I shall now return to fight against the prince of Persia; so I am going forth, and behold, the prince of Greece is about to come. However, I will tell you what is inscribed in the writing of truth. Yet there is no one who stands firmly with me against these forces except Michael your prince.  Daniel 10:20-21

 

There is definitely a spiritual aspect to the four beast kingdoms...or maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

So you're suggesting I should filter my Hermeneutics through the World first then get back to you?  

 

I did provide an External Reference, the 139 Member Countries of the UN....so wrong again.

 

Can you list the External "References" you've provided?

 

 

"and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft."----

 

 

Your list of UN member nations was interesting, albeit non-specific to the discussion.   It does not suffice to represent authoritative and legitimate support for any of your Biblical assertions.   To repeat my earlier invitation, I suggest that you include external references to your bombastic insinuations.  Until and unless you do, you are only proving to the casual reader that you consider your subjective opinion to be gospel truth.   Sadly, not only do your prefer to argue endlessly to no real point but you refuse to accept any corrections, admonitions or suggestions for further study.    In possession of such an attitude, one wonders if such an attitude and opinion is the result of an education in a formal environment or the product of a confused and aggressive philosophy contrived solely in the mind.

 

Filter your hermeneutics?   Look up the definition of the word.  Hermeneutics is "the  branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation..."   Any modern branch of knowledgeable study requires the consideration of external sources.   You consider none except your own.  This is NOT hermeneutics, it is pretentious self-indulgent use of scripture for personal gratification.  You may prefer to gratify yourself within your dark private place, but it does little to edify others.

 

Did you graduate from any formal institution, such as high school?   If so, you may remember being required to write papers with external sources for your conclusions.   That is the accepted form for forming an opinion, sir.   Are you looking for the truth or do you worship your own words as though you were appreciating your own reflection in some sort of literary mirror.

 

First assertion last was that I BEGAN the conversation.   I certainly did not.  Like others I responded to the initial post of this particular thread "Is the prophecy of iron and clay for today".    In short, I believe it is.    The details of my statement, complete with external references (which you are incapable of providing) do not agree with your papal position.  Are you the sole arbiter of the meaning of scripture?   If your attitude is to be believed you seem to think so.  

 

By now the reader must wonder why I'm spending so much time in a futile attempt to get you to do one simple thing - to consider that your dogma is somewhat erroneous.  The truth is that I perceive you do have a certain cognitive ability and desire for perusal of scripture.   You have done yourself a disservice by fastening upon your own interpretations to the complete dismissal of opinions of men who are your betters (I refer here to literary authorities, historic authorities, etc.).   This is not a healthy attitude and certainly not the Christian ideal.

 

Humility is not on your plate.   If it was I am convinced you would become an avid student and a useful contributor to the practical application of Biblically based knowledge.  As it is, your posts carry no authority at all.   They are merely examples of badly digested internal formulations with the same effect upon your readers as baked beans on a bus trip. 

 

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

 

 

 

 

 

 

============================================================================================================================

 

Another Op Ed Piece, wonderful.  

 

Thanks for quoting my replies directly and dealing with each specifically.  A Testimony to your attention to detail.

 

Your list of UN member nations was interesting, albeit non-specific to the discussion.

 

 

So providing a detailed Member List of the UN (of which is your ENTIRE position of the IRON toes {which is ROME} but according to you is the UN) is non specific to the discussion?  

 

It's about as Non-Specific to the Discussion as Hydrogen Bonding is Non-Specific to Protein Secondary Structure.

 

 

It does not suffice to represent authoritative and legitimate support for any of your Biblical assertions.

 

 

Strawman (Fallacy)  Then it's a good thing I didn't use it for any Biblical Assertions.  The attributes and merit/veracity of the statue and specifically The Iron Legs (ROME) and Iron Toes stand on their own.  I specifically used The UN List to show a Juxtaposition between IT  (THE NATIONS/EMPIRES, 139 of them) and The Iron (ONE EMPIRE).

 

How else would I frame my argument....Compare The Metals of the Statue with a Foundry?  Bread-making?  Widgets? ad infinitum

 

 

I suggest that you include external references to your bombastic insinuations.  Until and unless you do, you are only proving to the casual reader that you consider your subjective opinion to be gospel truth.

 

 

Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy) ----- "Bombastic Insinuations".....Please show?

 

As I've asked, Please list "your" External References that you have provided.......?  Minus your Baseless Opinions which is all you have provided, without any Scripture Support Whatsoever, (save for "the commentaries"-------of which I showed you I agree with and provided links to support that assertion) you have a Big Fat ZERO.

 

So Pot meet Kettle  

 

 

not only do your prefer to argue endlessly to no real point

 

 

  No point, eh?  My point for the 10th time....... The Iron Legs = ROME -----> Ergo, the Iron Toes = partly ROME.  Not the UN.  The UN is your position, that if you've been keeping up on current events, has been summarily dismantled.....ERGO, and AS EVIDENCED BY the seemingly never ending Color Commentaries/ Appeals to Emotion (Fallacy)/Op Ed Pieces used as a clumsy Red Herring (Fallacy) to divert away from it (due to No Argument).

 

Pretty much sums it up. 

 

 

but you refuse to accept any corrections, admonitions or suggestions for further study.

 

 

And again, Baseless "erroneous" Assertions (Fallacy) x 3.  Please show where....?   From Who?   Show why....?

 

 

In possession of such an attitude, one wonders if such an attitude and opinion is the result of an education in a formal environment or the product of a confused and aggressive philosophy contrived solely in the mind.

 

 

Of course this conclusion is based on your Fallacious Premise ("refuse to accept any corrections, admonitions or suggestions"; above) which makes everything downstream from those Fallacies......Fallacious.  Sort of a Garbage in Garbage out motif. 

 

PRO Tip:  Fallacies are Fallacious

 

 

Filter your hermeneutics?   Look up the definition of the word.  Hermeneutics is "the  branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation..."   Any modern branch of knowledgeable study requires the consideration of external sources.   You consider none except your own.

 

 

 So you give me a definition of a word.....I'm assuming that you must be implying that I didn't know what it meant to begin with.  Then give me a Short Treatise on it's practical use.  Then conclude that I do not practice this.

 

Can you please tell us how you know this?  Must be Special Mind Powers.  OK, lets put it to the TEST....What's my Favorite Color?

 

Must be rough "conjuring" this Strawman (Fallacy) from Vapor then burning it down within seconds.  Tell me, do you prepare the flame thrower just before or right after you you wicker these together?

 

 

Did you graduate from any formal institution, such as high school? 

 

 

This is what you're reduced to:  Ask yourself, "How on Earth did I get here from my half-baked UN position"?  The answer is somewhere in the vicinity of -----> "half-baked".

 

 

 

Humility is not on your plate.   If it was I am convinced you would become an avid student and a useful contributor to the practical application of Biblically based knowledge.  As it is, your posts carry no authority at all.   They are merely examples of badly digested internal formulations with the same effect upon your readers as baked beans on a bus trip.

 

 

Appeal to Emotion (Fallacy)----"humility".  A Sweeping Baseless Assertion (Fallacy)----"Your Posts".  And a colorfully illustrated (not so complimentary) conclusion that has it's premises based on Fallacies.

 

The Epitome of Humility entrenched in your message; Thanks for leading by example. 

 

And, How can I be a "useful contributor" of "Biblically based knowledge" when you've been "hollering from the choir" for 3 posts to focus on "External Sources"?

 

Sort of like cutting off your leg so as to prevent athlete's foot reasoning.

 

You have done yourself a disservice by fastening upon your own interpretations to the complete dismissal of opinions of men who are your betters

 

 

(2 Timothy 4:3-4) "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;  {4} And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

[Guest james2]

The legs of Iron is Imperial Rome now Political Rome (E.U)

[other one]

The beast will be thrown into a lake of fire.. that will be interesting to watch how islam will be thrown into the fire.

[Enoch2021]

So glad that I found someone else studying this I noticed that if you review Revelation

 

Looking at the following in Revelation with Daniel statue I too am debating if the legs are the Roman Empire:

^{Rev 17:9} And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. (7 Kings)

^{Rev 17:10} And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is (Roman Empire - John was in the Roman Empire when he was writing Revelation), and the other is not yet come (Ottoman Empire); and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

1st = Egypt (Fallen)???

2nd = Assyria (Iraq) (Fallen)???

3rd = Babylon (Iraq) (Fallen) Lion

4th = Persia (Iran) (Fallen) Bear

5th = Grecian Empire (Fallen) Leopard

6th = Roman (John when he wrote Revelation) This point really makes sense in my opinion but I could be wrong

7th = Ottoman (ISLAM)

¹¹ And the beast (Anti–Christ) that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, (ISLAM) and is of the seven,(ISLAM) and goeth into perdition (destruction).

¹² And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

Also if you look at Revelation 6:8

⁸ And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. (Doesn't this sound like Islam)?

 

 

 

 

=================================================================================================================

 

 

 

Looking at the following in Revelation with Daniel statue I too am debating if the legs are the Roman Empire:

 

 

What Empire came after Greece?

 

 

Rev 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. (7 Kings)

 

 

So "the woman" is sitting on 7 Kings...can you name the Kings?

 

What do "Mountains" idiomatically represent in Scripture?

 

What do "Horns" idiomatically represent in Scripture?

 

 

Rev 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is (Roman Empire....

 

 

But you said above that the "seven kings" are 7 Kings.  Here you state the the "one is" is the Roman Empire?  Rome had many Emperors ("Kings").  Are the Seven Kings Literal Kings or Kingdoms?

 

 

Rev 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is (Roman Empire - John was in the Roman Empire when he was writing Revelation), and the other is not yet come (Ottoman Empire); and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

 

 

The Ottoman Empire   .  The "other" that has not yet come (And FINAL Kingdom) is....

 

(Daniel 2:41-44) "And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.  {42} And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.  {43} And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.  {44} And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."

 

Please show the 10 Kings of the Ottoman Empire.....?

 

And since the Ten Toes here are Ten Kings and the Ten Horns, from the Dreadful and Terrible Beast Daniel Chapter 7....are Ten Kings, Please show the anti-christ rising up from among them (11 Kings) then Three Kings being "Plucked up by the Roots" (minus 3 Kings)...making him the Eighth???

 

And since the "Ottoman Empire" collapsed and dissolved after World War 1.... The ac must be hanging around somewhere and be OVER 100 years old.

 

Please show who the "five are fallen" are.....?

 

And where do all the other "Empires" come in AFTER the "Ottoman" (England, US, Russia, China, ect).....? 

 

 

11 And the beast (Anti–Christ) that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, (ISLAM) and is of the seven,(ISLAM) and goeth into perdition (destruction).

 

 

Do you have any other SUPPORT than sticking "Names" into Scripture?

 

 

8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. (Doesn't this sound like Islam)?

 

 

So you have "The Eighth" /ac as Islam, from above.

 

And Now you have the Pale Horse as Islam??       Who isn't Islam in your scenario?

 

 

 

The Other One, You beat me to it.  Kudos   .....

 

The beast will be thrown into a lake of fire.. that will be interesting to watch how islam will be thrown into the fire.

[ncn]

Enoch2021, I have another post which had a video that kind of explain what I was asking but it was removed I don't know know how you can find it but it was on this thread. http://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/186252-will-islam-be-the-one-world-religion/

 

**Link removed***

 

Please understand the following  as to why your video was removed. 

 

All videos posted on worthy must be placed in the video forum first.

The videos placed in the appropriate forum are then watched and approved by a members of the ministry prior to being released.

Placing a video in the video forum does not mean that it will necessarily be approved. 

(Please read the section of posting videos   )

 

If you wish to add a video to your post, then the only way is to have the video first placed in the video forum and approved, 

then you can insert the link to the forum video page where you video is on your thread or post. 

You must be careful that the link is to the video page and not the video per se.

In that way, the actual video will not appear in your thread and only the link to the video forum appears. 

 

I have also removed your direct link to video in your above post of today because, that site is selling products , IE videos etc. 

Worthy does not permit advertising in any forum , if we did the boards would be flooded with them. 

 

God Bless. 

 

Nigel.